sounds great but then you have the benefits, you have employers who have to fork out extra and how do we know if two men are not room mates or homos anyway.
How do we know they are not just wanting the health benefits from work etc?
the fact is that if we allow this as you say then we should not allow Govt to have a say in any kind of marriage so when bubba comes in to his job and says he is just married to his goat then does his employer now have to pay for vet benefits?
fact is there is a line int eh sane , on one side it is normal marriage the other side of the line if anything goes
which side are you on?
"marriage" to animals, "marriage" to inanimate objects,
Did you miss the part where I said "two consenting adults"? Did I really have to add "humans"?
"fact is there is a line int eh sane , on one side it is normal marriage the other side of the line if anything goes. which side are you on?"
I am on the side that fights for the idea that government has no right to demand that I accept a bunch of elected idiot's view of "marriage" over that of my Church's and my Faith's view of marriage.
But I am also aware that once I empower politicians to decide what a "marriage" is, it's a crap shoot as to what off the wall definition they will come up with -- usually it will be whatever will get them re-elected. That's why I am for taking the definition of marriage out of their hands all together and simply letting them do what they are trained to do as lawyers, deal with the basic legal contract -- and leave the Marriage Sacrament to us.